5 ms·

A book isn't something you're supposed to read and finish. It's a set of ideas you develop over multiple reads, if a book isn't worth reading multiple times it'

A book isn't something you're supposed to read and finish. It's a set of ideas you develop over multiple reads, if a book isn't worth reading multiple times it's probably not worth reading once. This is obviously true for non fiction programming books where you can spend years developing a library off of ideas from a single chapter but I was also surprised to learn that it's also true for fiction books. My girlfriend doesn't mind spoilers in novels because she reasons if a book isn't good enough with spoilers it's probably not good enough without the spoilers too. The goal should be to enjoy reading not read, it's deceptively unproductive to force yourself to finish a book.

paulcole 6y ago
> A book isn't something you're supposed to read and finish Shit, I’ve been doing it wrong all these years. Thanks for setting me straight.
falcor84 6y ago
Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
DyslexicAtheist 6y ago
I really enjoy reading fast books which have no value other than to make me chuckle or give me a thrill[1] where my aim is _not_ to be productive because well you know life isn't just a big ol hamster wheel ... though I agree that most books which I read which stay with me mentally and where I see myself going back to them are far from easy. These are in the class of being at least x years old (Jacques Ellul, Marx, Mumford, Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Kant, Zapffe, Heidegger, Foucault, Bertrand Russel, Cioran, Dostoyevski, Kafka, Orwell, Sinclair, J. Austin ...) and preferably in the public domain. A book which I never read at least twice isn't something I'd consider having an impact on me. But then sometimes drifting aimlessly with "wtf did I just read?" moments has more impact/effect on me than anything that is listed as a great classic. So there is no reason to be elitist imho (and I can't overstate the _humble_ here since 20 years ago I thought Dean Koontz novels were the bees knees). [1] "Bill Bryson", John Cleese, or the absolutely hilarious "Let's Pretend This Never Happened" by Jenny Lawson.
fit2rule 6y ago
Books often are read and finished. I commit to such act before I start, even. But I'll grant that any given set of ideas and concepts and wild fancy in any form of literature, this conglomeration, is truly strengthened by frequent mindful re-visits. Whatever the subject. Books are up to the interest of the reader, on behalf of the author. Getting through one, in one or many sittings, is a pretty nice endeavour.
noizejoy 6y ago
I respect and partially agree with what you’re saying. However, your post sounds a bit too absolutist to me. In reality books, like any form of communication are incredibly diverse on the production as well on the consumption side. A novel is very different than a reference. A teaching book is very different than a biography. Some books are more about the journey - some are more about the destination. There are many different ways to consume (some or all of) a book. And that’s driven by both: how it was written and what a reader wants out of it at that moment in time. Books are one of the manifestations of the incredible plurality in our species.

paulcole 6y ago

> A book isn't something you're supposed to read and finish Shit, I’ve been doing it wrong all these years. Thanks for setting me straight.

falcor84 6y ago

Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

DyslexicAtheist 6y ago

I really enjoy reading fast books which have no value other than to make me chuckle or give me a thrill[1] where my aim is _not_ to be productive because well you know life isn't just a big ol hamster wheel ... though I agree that most books which I read which stay with me mentally and where I see myself going back to them are far from easy. These are in the class of being at least x years old (Jacques Ellul, Marx, Mumford, Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Kant, Zapffe, Heidegger, Foucault, Bertrand Russel, Cioran, Dostoyevski, Kafka, Orwell, Sinclair, J. Austin ...) and preferably in the public domain. A book which I never read at least twice isn't something I'd consider having an impact on me. But then sometimes drifting aimlessly with "wtf did I just read?" moments has more impact/effect on me than anything that is listed as a great classic. So there is no reason to be elitist imho (and I can't overstate the _humble_ here since 20 years ago I thought Dean Koontz novels were the bees knees). [1] "Bill Bryson", John Cleese, or the absolutely hilarious "Let's Pretend This Never Happened" by Jenny Lawson.

fit2rule 6y ago

Books often are read and finished. I commit to such act before I start, even. But I'll grant that any given set of ideas and concepts and wild fancy in any form of literature, this conglomeration, is truly strengthened by frequent mindful re-visits. Whatever the subject. Books are up to the interest of the reader, on behalf of the author. Getting through one, in one or many sittings, is a pretty nice endeavour.

noizejoy 6y ago

I respect and partially agree with what you’re saying. However, your post sounds a bit too absolutist to me. In reality books, like any form of communication are incredibly diverse on the production as well on the consumption side. A novel is very different than a reference. A teaching book is very different than a biography. Some books are more about the journey - some are more about the destination. There are many different ways to consume (some or all of) a book. And that’s driven by both: how it was written and what a reader wants out of it at that moment in time. Books are one of the manifestations of the incredible plurality in our species.